|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Just as long as next time a reporter gets tackled by a Republican running for Congress for asking mean questions and then initially lies to directly contradict eyewitness accounts xDaunt and Danglars decry his fascistic impulses, I don't mind calling advocating or engaging in violence against political opponents, particularly journalists, as fascistic. Kinda like saying how you'll cover someone's legal bills for punching someone protesting your rally (hee ho what a funneh joke) isn't appropriate for political candidates.
|
On July 03 2019 01:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 00:55 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:05 Danglars wrote:
I really hope that you change your mind on defending journalists in the face of Antifa violence. If only for showing that Trump's rhetoric on the media actually incenses you, rather than just wishing it were a left-wing figure trashing some "non-journalists." It's really a telling sign that Trump's speech is tantamount to inciting violence against journalists, and actual violence against journalists makes you question if they really were journalists (and others to question if it really was a brain hemorrhage). It's not for lack of video, it's for lack of courage. What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? To the extent that white supremacists refer to the marchers at Charlottesville, I definitely oppose them. Remember, however, that I’ve been called a white supremacist in forum posts and PMs, whereas I don’t remember labels of Antifa being thrown around quite as casually. You’re going to run into problems with your use of that term here in today’s political environment. I favor restricted immigration and a longer border wall, and free speech rights for even the most detestable in society. If that’s a qualifier for a white supremacist as you use it, and not just David duke and Richard Spencer and followers with tiki torches, then I’d argue you’re mistaken.
I have zero problem with you casually calling me an antifascist if you feel inclined to do so. I can confirm, I hate their guts.
|
On July 03 2019 01:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 01:25 NewSunshine wrote:On July 02 2019 23:52 farvacola wrote:
Thank you for performatively proving my point. I also want to know how calling someone a "non-journalist" is qualitatively different from calling what they do "fake news"? + Show Spoiler +On July 02 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 22:18 farvacola wrote:On July 02 2019 21:49 Neneu wrote:
If there is one thing that is being done all the time in media, it is misquoting. It does not make it right, but it is just a part of what a lot of media is doing atm.
Deciding who is a journalist and who is not, is a dangerous road to walk down. It is one of the reasons journalist's death rate is on the rise and retaliation murders nearly doubled in 2018. People don't care about the protections of journalists they don't agree with, as much as they did before. Your trepidation in the face of identifying journalists and non-journalists is a key aspect of what goes into fascist cooption of liberal social norms. It’s basically another iteration of the paradox of tolerance. The fascistic impulse is to label disfavored reporting " non-journalistsFake News." It's a start to making the violence against them feel less shocking. He filmed the protest, and with many cameras turned on him, did nothing to instigate the violence directed against him. That's simply assaulting a journalist, and trying to partially excuse it along the lines of "he was asking for it." In this case, "fascist cooption of liberal social norms" is a rebranding of "illiberalism is justified when it's not the right kind of people doijng the reporting." I'd say that's a stone's throw from saying because he was gay and Asian, he was coopting norms. Different labels, essentially same reasoning. Suddenly that doesn't seem to read the same way. Their work product and what that says about their ethics is quite a different thing than credentialism of farva’s stripe. The journalists at the NYT and WaPo regularly publish misleading stories with major omissions or extreme slant. It doesn’t mean they’re not journalists. It doesn’t relate to calling somebody not a journalist to mean something material in violence against that person. As a reminder, you haven’t weighed in on the main disagreement prompting farva’s string of posts.
And you won't see me weighing in on it. I'm just offering a quick reality check for people who've thought it totally ok to fling around the term "Fake News" for the past 3 years, who now suddenly see this ridicule of the journalistic profession to be totally abhorrent. As soon as the discussion became about Antifa, that position seemed to change pretty quickly.
|
On July 03 2019 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 01:30 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:55 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:05 Danglars wrote:
I really hope that you change your mind on defending journalists in the face of Antifa violence. If only for showing that Trump's rhetoric on the media actually incenses you, rather than just wishing it were a left-wing figure trashing some "non-journalists." It's really a telling sign that Trump's speech is tantamount to inciting violence against journalists, and actual violence against journalists makes you question if they really were journalists (and others to question if it really was a brain hemorrhage). It's not for lack of video, it's for lack of courage. What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? To the extent that white supremacists refer to the marchers at Charlottesville, I definitely oppose them. Remember, however, that I’ve been called a white supremacist in forum posts and PMs, whereas I don’t remember labels of Antifa being thrown around quite as casually. You’re going to run into problems with your use of that term here in today’s political environment. I favor restricted immigration and a longer border wall, and free speech rights for even the most detestable in society. If that’s a qualifier for a white supremacist as you use it, and not just David duke and Richard Spencer and followers with tiki torches, then I’d argue you’re mistaken. I have zero problem with you casually calling me an antifascist if you feel inclined to do so. I can confirm, I hate their guts.
I prefer to hold up the people using the word fascist against their political views, and check the intersects. Acrofales already did an admirable job in this vein, as evidenced by your last post
I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists
It's me, I decide who gets to punch who.
Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism I'm a capitalist, and I'm profiting from his labor in exploring your position on fascists/punching fascists/who decides who gets to punch who.
If you choose to don black, wear a mask, and march in the streets lobbing milkshakes alongside people knocking over and kicking others, then I'll call you part of Antifa or an Antifa thug, no problem.
|
On July 03 2019 02:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 01:30 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:55 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:05 Danglars wrote:
I really hope that you change your mind on defending journalists in the face of Antifa violence. If only for showing that Trump's rhetoric on the media actually incenses you, rather than just wishing it were a left-wing figure trashing some "non-journalists." It's really a telling sign that Trump's speech is tantamount to inciting violence against journalists, and actual violence against journalists makes you question if they really were journalists (and others to question if it really was a brain hemorrhage). It's not for lack of video, it's for lack of courage. What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? To the extent that white supremacists refer to the marchers at Charlottesville, I definitely oppose them. Remember, however, that I’ve been called a white supremacist in forum posts and PMs, whereas I don’t remember labels of Antifa being thrown around quite as casually. You’re going to run into problems with your use of that term here in today’s political environment. I favor restricted immigration and a longer border wall, and free speech rights for even the most detestable in society. If that’s a qualifier for a white supremacist as you use it, and not just David duke and Richard Spencer and followers with tiki torches, then I’d argue you’re mistaken. I have zero problem with you casually calling me an antifascist if you feel inclined to do so. I can confirm, I hate their guts. I prefer to hold up the people using the word fascist against their political views, and check the intersects. Acrofales already did an admirable job in this vein, as evidenced by your last post Show nested quote +I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists
It's me, I decide who gets to punch who.
Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism I'm a capitalist, and I'm profiting from his labor in exploring your position on fascists/punching fascists/who decides who gets to punch who. If you choose to don black, wear a mask, and march in the streets lobbing milkshakes alongside people knocking over and kicking others, then I'll call you part of Antifa or an Antifa thug, no problem.
Could you make the argument that you're making a little more directly? I can't tell what you're saying exactly, and I don't want to go in a direction and then have you say "actually I meant something else".
|
On July 03 2019 02:03 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 01:38 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 01:25 NewSunshine wrote:On July 02 2019 23:52 farvacola wrote:
Thank you for performatively proving my point. I also want to know how calling someone a "non-journalist" is qualitatively different from calling what they do "fake news"? + Show Spoiler +On July 02 2019 23:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2019 22:18 farvacola wrote:On July 02 2019 21:49 Neneu wrote:
If there is one thing that is being done all the time in media, it is misquoting. It does not make it right, but it is just a part of what a lot of media is doing atm.
Deciding who is a journalist and who is not, is a dangerous road to walk down. It is one of the reasons journalist's death rate is on the rise and retaliation murders nearly doubled in 2018. People don't care about the protections of journalists they don't agree with, as much as they did before. Your trepidation in the face of identifying journalists and non-journalists is a key aspect of what goes into fascist cooption of liberal social norms. It’s basically another iteration of the paradox of tolerance. The fascistic impulse is to label disfavored reporting " non-journalistsFake News." It's a start to making the violence against them feel less shocking. He filmed the protest, and with many cameras turned on him, did nothing to instigate the violence directed against him. That's simply assaulting a journalist, and trying to partially excuse it along the lines of "he was asking for it." In this case, "fascist cooption of liberal social norms" is a rebranding of "illiberalism is justified when it's not the right kind of people doijng the reporting." I'd say that's a stone's throw from saying because he was gay and Asian, he was coopting norms. Different labels, essentially same reasoning. Suddenly that doesn't seem to read the same way. Their work product and what that says about their ethics is quite a different thing than credentialism of farva’s stripe. The journalists at the NYT and WaPo regularly publish misleading stories with major omissions or extreme slant. It doesn’t mean they’re not journalists. It doesn’t relate to calling somebody not a journalist to mean something material in violence against that person. As a reminder, you haven’t weighed in on the main disagreement prompting farva’s string of posts. And you won't see me weighing in on it. I'm just offering a quick reality check for people who've thought it totally ok to fling around the term "Fake News" for the past 3 years, who now suddenly see this ridicule of the journalistic profession to be totally abhorrent. As soon as the discussion became about Antifa, that position seemed to change pretty quickly.
Yeah, it is pretty funny to watch the values change so completely by 180° depending on who is the subject. And it happens so consistently that at this point i feel pretty save to say that these people have absolutely no values except for "rightwing good, leftwing bad".
|
On July 03 2019 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 02:11 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 01:30 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:55 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:05 Danglars wrote:
I really hope that you change your mind on defending journalists in the face of Antifa violence. If only for showing that Trump's rhetoric on the media actually incenses you, rather than just wishing it were a left-wing figure trashing some "non-journalists." It's really a telling sign that Trump's speech is tantamount to inciting violence against journalists, and actual violence against journalists makes you question if they really were journalists (and others to question if it really was a brain hemorrhage). It's not for lack of video, it's for lack of courage. What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? To the extent that white supremacists refer to the marchers at Charlottesville, I definitely oppose them. Remember, however, that I’ve been called a white supremacist in forum posts and PMs, whereas I don’t remember labels of Antifa being thrown around quite as casually. You’re going to run into problems with your use of that term here in today’s political environment. I favor restricted immigration and a longer border wall, and free speech rights for even the most detestable in society. If that’s a qualifier for a white supremacist as you use it, and not just David duke and Richard Spencer and followers with tiki torches, then I’d argue you’re mistaken. I have zero problem with you casually calling me an antifascist if you feel inclined to do so. I can confirm, I hate their guts. I prefer to hold up the people using the word fascist against their political views, and check the intersects. Acrofales already did an admirable job in this vein, as evidenced by your last post I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists
It's me, I decide who gets to punch who.
Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism I'm a capitalist, and I'm profiting from his labor in exploring your position on fascists/punching fascists/who decides who gets to punch who. If you choose to don black, wear a mask, and march in the streets lobbing milkshakes alongside people knocking over and kicking others, then I'll call you part of Antifa or an Antifa thug, no problem. Could you make the argument that you're making a little more directly? I can't tell what you're saying exactly, and I don't want to go in a direction and then have you say "actually I meant something else".
You remarked that you didn't have a problem being called an antifascist, but I'm not running around throwing those terms on others. I'm examining their use by others in light of their political views, as Acrofales just did for you. I see no need to repeat the exercise. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm advancing an argument in relationship to you.
|
On July 03 2019 02:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 02:11 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 01:30 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:55 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:05 Danglars wrote:
I really hope that you change your mind on defending journalists in the face of Antifa violence. If only for showing that Trump's rhetoric on the media actually incenses you, rather than just wishing it were a left-wing figure trashing some "non-journalists." It's really a telling sign that Trump's speech is tantamount to inciting violence against journalists, and actual violence against journalists makes you question if they really were journalists (and others to question if it really was a brain hemorrhage). It's not for lack of video, it's for lack of courage. What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? To the extent that white supremacists refer to the marchers at Charlottesville, I definitely oppose them. Remember, however, that I’ve been called a white supremacist in forum posts and PMs, whereas I don’t remember labels of Antifa being thrown around quite as casually. You’re going to run into problems with your use of that term here in today’s political environment. I favor restricted immigration and a longer border wall, and free speech rights for even the most detestable in society. If that’s a qualifier for a white supremacist as you use it, and not just David duke and Richard Spencer and followers with tiki torches, then I’d argue you’re mistaken. I have zero problem with you casually calling me an antifascist if you feel inclined to do so. I can confirm, I hate their guts. I prefer to hold up the people using the word fascist against their political views, and check the intersects. Acrofales already did an admirable job in this vein, as evidenced by your last post I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists
It's me, I decide who gets to punch who.
Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism I'm a capitalist, and I'm profiting from his labor in exploring your position on fascists/punching fascists/who decides who gets to punch who. If you choose to don black, wear a mask, and march in the streets lobbing milkshakes alongside people knocking over and kicking others, then I'll call you part of Antifa or an Antifa thug, no problem. Could you make the argument that you're making a little more directly? I can't tell what you're saying exactly, and I don't want to go in a direction and then have you say "actually I meant something else". You remarked that you didn't have a problem being called an antifascist, but I'm not running around throwing those terms on others. I'm examining their use by others in light of their political views, as Acrofales just did for you. I see no need to repeat the exercise. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm advancing an argument in relationship to you.
What is the result of your examination?
|
On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:11 Nebuchad wrote:
There is something telling about the fact that every time something like this comes up it's impossible for some people to single out the fascists. Like, I can't be morally fine with attacking Andy Ngo, fascist sympathizer, I have to be fine with attacking journalists. It's the same process that happens every time the word "fascist" is replaced by "people who disagree with you on politics".
I am not fine with assaulting "journalists". Farva isn't fine with assaulting "journalists". If you don't know that, you ought to. Be better. The problem here is that you think beating up fascists is totally okay. Even if those "fascists" are not actually doing anything violent. Even though I agree with you that Andy Ngo is a deplorable troll, smashing him in the face and stealing his gopro is not an adequate response, nor is it morally justified. There's a reason we have a justice system. If you think "adhering to a fascist ideology" is so bad you should be punched over it, you should pass censorship laws on fascist propaganda, ban fascist organizations, and generally make fascism illegal. But going out and punching them in the face is wrong on many levels. 1) Violence doesn't solve anything, it just polarizes the issue further, which leads to more violence, more polarization, etc. 2) Who decides who gets to punch who? I'm sure there's people who feel communists are despiccable and should be punched in the face. Do you, neb, deserve to be punched in the face for your political beliefs? Communism may have a noble goal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is no doubt that all communist regimes so far have all been fucking awful... most of them considerably worse than Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. So defending our civilization from communists is a noble goal, and communists should be punched in the face. Right? And what about atheists? Clearly their loose morals is leading us down the road to destruction and needs to be stopped. Violently if necessary. Or for that matter, evangelicals. Their puritannical intolerance must be stopped. Etc. etc. 3) Note how I just decided you were a communist? In a system where we could punch communists in the face, you'd be screwed. Even though you have self-declared various times as definitely not a communist. Mob rule doesn't care. Antifa decided Andy Ngo is a fascist and should be punched. In this case they might be right. But mob rule is often wrong and innocents get lynched. Are these non-fascist innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time acceptable collateral for the "good" of punching fascists? Btw, regarding anti-fascism laws, many of them are in place in various European countries. I don't know whether we have less problems with fascism than the US, but we definitely have less *overt* fascism. We also have a lot less problems with violence against journalists. Yes, I do agree with your characterization of what the problem is: we do have a difference in our moral code. The justice system deals with legal questions not with moral questions. I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists, in case I need to make that clear. And yes of course my preferred route is having laws that ban fascism as hate speech, that makes a lot more sense than relying on the kindness of masked strangers. But that's not going to happen in the US any time soon. 1) That's true, yeah. If you have some way of solving fascism I'm listening. Last time around we went with the antifascist route. 2) It's me, I decide who gets to punch who. We're talking about what I think is morally okay, I'm not sure why it comes off as a surprise that I'm the one who decides it. 3) Are you trying to have me empathize with fascists? Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism, for the record, and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists.
For me it's always been easy to understand why it's morally okay, but technically illegal, to punch someone like Ngo. It's how we deal with overt interpersonal racism in the moment.
|
On July 03 2019 02:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 02:36 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 02:11 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 01:30 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:55 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:05 Danglars wrote:
I really hope that you change your mind on defending journalists in the face of Antifa violence. If only for showing that Trump's rhetoric on the media actually incenses you, rather than just wishing it were a left-wing figure trashing some "non-journalists." It's really a telling sign that Trump's speech is tantamount to inciting violence against journalists, and actual violence against journalists makes you question if they really were journalists (and others to question if it really was a brain hemorrhage). It's not for lack of video, it's for lack of courage. What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? To the extent that white supremacists refer to the marchers at Charlottesville, I definitely oppose them. Remember, however, that I’ve been called a white supremacist in forum posts and PMs, whereas I don’t remember labels of Antifa being thrown around quite as casually. You’re going to run into problems with your use of that term here in today’s political environment. I favor restricted immigration and a longer border wall, and free speech rights for even the most detestable in society. If that’s a qualifier for a white supremacist as you use it, and not just David duke and Richard Spencer and followers with tiki torches, then I’d argue you’re mistaken. I have zero problem with you casually calling me an antifascist if you feel inclined to do so. I can confirm, I hate their guts. I prefer to hold up the people using the word fascist against their political views, and check the intersects. Acrofales already did an admirable job in this vein, as evidenced by your last post I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists
It's me, I decide who gets to punch who.
Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism I'm a capitalist, and I'm profiting from his labor in exploring your position on fascists/punching fascists/who decides who gets to punch who. If you choose to don black, wear a mask, and march in the streets lobbing milkshakes alongside people knocking over and kicking others, then I'll call you part of Antifa or an Antifa thug, no problem. Could you make the argument that you're making a little more directly? I can't tell what you're saying exactly, and I don't want to go in a direction and then have you say "actually I meant something else". You remarked that you didn't have a problem being called an antifascist, but I'm not running around throwing those terms on others. I'm examining their use by others in light of their political views, as Acrofales just did for you. I see no need to repeat the exercise. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm advancing an argument in relationship to you. What is the result of your examination?
Come now, you just said it. You don't want it to be legal to punch fascists. You're morally secure in deciding who is fascist for punching, when Acrofales brings up other people using your logic for commies. You're very confident that a system "where we could punch socialists in the face ... is called fascism ... and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists." Were you expecting some kind of Tucker Carlson rant and personal insults after finding this information? Do you want me to try and convince you to think differently about your ethics? I'm not wasting my time in that manner, and you didn't touch or add to farva's nonjournalist/fascist cooption of liberal social norms/paradox of tolerance. That was the only thing of interest, besides what I already pointed out in past posts. I'd sooner ask you to change your belief in a divine, omniscient being in total control of your afterlife.
|
On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:11 Nebuchad wrote:
There is something telling about the fact that every time something like this comes up it's impossible for some people to single out the fascists. Like, I can't be morally fine with attacking Andy Ngo, fascist sympathizer, I have to be fine with attacking journalists. It's the same process that happens every time the word "fascist" is replaced by "people who disagree with you on politics".
I am not fine with assaulting "journalists". Farva isn't fine with assaulting "journalists". If you don't know that, you ought to. Be better. The problem here is that you think beating up fascists is totally okay. Even if those "fascists" are not actually doing anything violent. Even though I agree with you that Andy Ngo is a deplorable troll, smashing him in the face and stealing his gopro is not an adequate response, nor is it morally justified. There's a reason we have a justice system. If you think "adhering to a fascist ideology" is so bad you should be punched over it, you should pass censorship laws on fascist propaganda, ban fascist organizations, and generally make fascism illegal. But going out and punching them in the face is wrong on many levels. 1) Violence doesn't solve anything, it just polarizes the issue further, which leads to more violence, more polarization, etc. 2) Who decides who gets to punch who? I'm sure there's people who feel communists are despiccable and should be punched in the face. Do you, neb, deserve to be punched in the face for your political beliefs? Communism may have a noble goal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is no doubt that all communist regimes so far have all been fucking awful... most of them considerably worse than Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. So defending our civilization from communists is a noble goal, and communists should be punched in the face. Right? And what about atheists? Clearly their loose morals is leading us down the road to destruction and needs to be stopped. Violently if necessary. Or for that matter, evangelicals. Their puritannical intolerance must be stopped. Etc. etc. 3) Note how I just decided you were a communist? In a system where we could punch communists in the face, you'd be screwed. Even though you have self-declared various times as definitely not a communist. Mob rule doesn't care. Antifa decided Andy Ngo is a fascist and should be punched. In this case they might be right. But mob rule is often wrong and innocents get lynched. Are these non-fascist innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time acceptable collateral for the "good" of punching fascists? Btw, regarding anti-fascism laws, many of them are in place in various European countries. I don't know whether we have less problems with fascism than the US, but we definitely have less *overt* fascism. We also have a lot less problems with violence against journalists. Yes, I do agree with your characterization of what the problem is: we do have a difference in our moral code. The justice system deals with legal questions not with moral questions. I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists, in case I need to make that clear. And yes of course my preferred route is having laws that ban fascism as hate speech, that makes a lot more sense than relying on the kindness of masked strangers. But that's not going to happen in the US any time soon. 1) That's true, yeah. If you have some way of solving fascism I'm listening. Last time around we went with the antifascist route. 2) It's me, I decide who gets to punch who. We're talking about what I think is morally okay, I'm not sure why it comes off as a surprise that I'm the one who decides it. 3) Are you trying to have me empathize with fascists? Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism, for the record, and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists.
1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried.
Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started.
The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists.
So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route.
2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail.
3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander.
|
On July 03 2019 03:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 02:43 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 02:36 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 02:11 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 01:30 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:55 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:17 ShoCkeyy wrote:
[quote]
What are your arguments against antifa? Antifa were the soldiers who went into Germany to help fight the nazis weren't they? Antifa literally stands for Anti-Fascism. I only see Antifa come out when White supremacists come out. I don't support violence in any way however. Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? To the extent that white supremacists refer to the marchers at Charlottesville, I definitely oppose them. Remember, however, that I’ve been called a white supremacist in forum posts and PMs, whereas I don’t remember labels of Antifa being thrown around quite as casually. You’re going to run into problems with your use of that term here in today’s political environment. I favor restricted immigration and a longer border wall, and free speech rights for even the most detestable in society. If that’s a qualifier for a white supremacist as you use it, and not just David duke and Richard Spencer and followers with tiki torches, then I’d argue you’re mistaken. I have zero problem with you casually calling me an antifascist if you feel inclined to do so. I can confirm, I hate their guts. I prefer to hold up the people using the word fascist against their political views, and check the intersects. Acrofales already did an admirable job in this vein, as evidenced by your last post I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists
It's me, I decide who gets to punch who.
Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism I'm a capitalist, and I'm profiting from his labor in exploring your position on fascists/punching fascists/who decides who gets to punch who. If you choose to don black, wear a mask, and march in the streets lobbing milkshakes alongside people knocking over and kicking others, then I'll call you part of Antifa or an Antifa thug, no problem. Could you make the argument that you're making a little more directly? I can't tell what you're saying exactly, and I don't want to go in a direction and then have you say "actually I meant something else". You remarked that you didn't have a problem being called an antifascist, but I'm not running around throwing those terms on others. I'm examining their use by others in light of their political views, as Acrofales just did for you. I see no need to repeat the exercise. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm advancing an argument in relationship to you. What is the result of your examination? Come now, you just said it. You don't want it to be legal to punch fascists. You're morally secure in deciding who is fascist for punching, when Acrofales brings up other people using your logic for commies. You're very confident that a system "where we could punch socialists in the face ... is called fascism ... and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists." Were you expecting some kind of Tucker Carlson rant and personal insults after finding this information? Do you want me to try and convince you to think differently about your ethics? I'm not wasting my time in that manner, and you didn't touch or add to farva's nonjournalist/fascist cooption of liberal social norms/paradox of tolerance. That was the only thing of interest, besides what I already pointed out in past posts. I'd sooner ask you to change your belief in a divine, omniscient being in total control of your afterlife.
Okay but what you describe here isn't consistent with what I said, or believe. People aren't fascist "for punching", fascism is a term that has a clear and defined meaning. One of the logical followups of that political ideology is the targetting and killing of leftists once it obtains power, so yeah, I do feel directly threatened by the existence of fascism as a leftist. However that isn't the defining characteristic of fascism, which is why when I'm morally okay with violence against them without having those other defining characteristics, it doesn't make me similar to a fascist, nor does it make what I say contradictory.
I can add something about the paradox of tolerance if you want. I think tolerance is one of the least helpful liberal notions, I think it can easily be replaced by less problematic notions in all of the cases where it's superficially helpful.
|
On July 03 2019 03:53 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:11 Nebuchad wrote:
There is something telling about the fact that every time something like this comes up it's impossible for some people to single out the fascists. Like, I can't be morally fine with attacking Andy Ngo, fascist sympathizer, I have to be fine with attacking journalists. It's the same process that happens every time the word "fascist" is replaced by "people who disagree with you on politics".
I am not fine with assaulting "journalists". Farva isn't fine with assaulting "journalists". If you don't know that, you ought to. Be better. The problem here is that you think beating up fascists is totally okay. Even if those "fascists" are not actually doing anything violent. Even though I agree with you that Andy Ngo is a deplorable troll, smashing him in the face and stealing his gopro is not an adequate response, nor is it morally justified. There's a reason we have a justice system. If you think "adhering to a fascist ideology" is so bad you should be punched over it, you should pass censorship laws on fascist propaganda, ban fascist organizations, and generally make fascism illegal. But going out and punching them in the face is wrong on many levels. 1) Violence doesn't solve anything, it just polarizes the issue further, which leads to more violence, more polarization, etc. 2) Who decides who gets to punch who? I'm sure there's people who feel communists are despiccable and should be punched in the face. Do you, neb, deserve to be punched in the face for your political beliefs? Communism may have a noble goal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is no doubt that all communist regimes so far have all been fucking awful... most of them considerably worse than Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. So defending our civilization from communists is a noble goal, and communists should be punched in the face. Right? And what about atheists? Clearly their loose morals is leading us down the road to destruction and needs to be stopped. Violently if necessary. Or for that matter, evangelicals. Their puritannical intolerance must be stopped. Etc. etc. 3) Note how I just decided you were a communist? In a system where we could punch communists in the face, you'd be screwed. Even though you have self-declared various times as definitely not a communist. Mob rule doesn't care. Antifa decided Andy Ngo is a fascist and should be punched. In this case they might be right. But mob rule is often wrong and innocents get lynched. Are these non-fascist innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time acceptable collateral for the "good" of punching fascists? Btw, regarding anti-fascism laws, many of them are in place in various European countries. I don't know whether we have less problems with fascism than the US, but we definitely have less *overt* fascism. We also have a lot less problems with violence against journalists. Yes, I do agree with your characterization of what the problem is: we do have a difference in our moral code. The justice system deals with legal questions not with moral questions. I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists, in case I need to make that clear. And yes of course my preferred route is having laws that ban fascism as hate speech, that makes a lot more sense than relying on the kindness of masked strangers. But that's not going to happen in the US any time soon. 1) That's true, yeah. If you have some way of solving fascism I'm listening. Last time around we went with the antifascist route. 2) It's me, I decide who gets to punch who. We're talking about what I think is morally okay, I'm not sure why it comes off as a surprise that I'm the one who decides it. 3) Are you trying to have me empathize with fascists? Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism, for the record, and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists. 1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried. Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started. The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists. So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route. 2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail. 3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander.
1) Okay sure that distinction makes sense, I can grant you that if you want. The end result is still that we dealt with the fascists with violence.
2) There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over fascists is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting.
3) Sure, if I am morally fine with assaulting fascists, and I assault someone who I think is a fascist, but it turns out they aren't, I am no longer morally justified. That's not a groundbreaking statement tho.
|
On July 03 2019 03:58 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 03:41 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 02:43 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 02:36 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 02:11 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 01:51 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 01:30 Danglars wrote:On July 03 2019 00:55 ShoCkeyy wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Their protests in the states are routinely violent. Whatever they may have once been, or may still be in certain offshoots in other countries, does not change who they are and what they do now. It’s only a matter of time before they pound someone dead instead of just bloody. I mean White Supremacists have already caused death at their rallies... Do you condone white supremacists? To the extent that white supremacists refer to the marchers at Charlottesville, I definitely oppose them. Remember, however, that I’ve been called a white supremacist in forum posts and PMs, whereas I don’t remember labels of Antifa being thrown around quite as casually. You’re going to run into problems with your use of that term here in today’s political environment. I favor restricted immigration and a longer border wall, and free speech rights for even the most detestable in society. If that’s a qualifier for a white supremacist as you use it, and not just David duke and Richard Spencer and followers with tiki torches, then I’d argue you’re mistaken. I have zero problem with you casually calling me an antifascist if you feel inclined to do so. I can confirm, I hate their guts. I prefer to hold up the people using the word fascist against their political views, and check the intersects. Acrofales already did an admirable job in this vein, as evidenced by your last post I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists
It's me, I decide who gets to punch who.
Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism I'm a capitalist, and I'm profiting from his labor in exploring your position on fascists/punching fascists/who decides who gets to punch who. If you choose to don black, wear a mask, and march in the streets lobbing milkshakes alongside people knocking over and kicking others, then I'll call you part of Antifa or an Antifa thug, no problem. Could you make the argument that you're making a little more directly? I can't tell what you're saying exactly, and I don't want to go in a direction and then have you say "actually I meant something else". You remarked that you didn't have a problem being called an antifascist, but I'm not running around throwing those terms on others. I'm examining their use by others in light of their political views, as Acrofales just did for you. I see no need to repeat the exercise. I don't know where you got the idea that I'm advancing an argument in relationship to you. What is the result of your examination? Come now, you just said it. You don't want it to be legal to punch fascists. You're morally secure in deciding who is fascist for punching, when Acrofales brings up other people using your logic for commies. You're very confident that a system "where we could punch socialists in the face ... is called fascism ... and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists." Were you expecting some kind of Tucker Carlson rant and personal insults after finding this information? Do you want me to try and convince you to think differently about your ethics? I'm not wasting my time in that manner, and you didn't touch or add to farva's nonjournalist/fascist cooption of liberal social norms/paradox of tolerance. That was the only thing of interest, besides what I already pointed out in past posts. I'd sooner ask you to change your belief in a divine, omniscient being in total control of your afterlife. Okay but what you describe here isn't consistent with what I said, or believe. People aren't fascist "for punching", fascism is a term that has a clear and defined meaning. One of the logical followups of that political ideology is the targetting and killing of leftists once it obtains power, so yeah, I do feel directly threatened by the existence of fascism as a leftist. However that isn't the defining characteristic of fascism, which is why when I'm morally okay with violence against them without having those other defining characteristics, it doesn't make me similar to a fascist, nor does it make what I say contradictory. I can add something about the paradox of tolerance if you want. I think tolerance is one of the least helpful liberal notions, I think it can easily be replaced by less problematic notions in all of the cases where it's superficially helpful.
If I wasn’t totally clear, I mean this exchange in your own words:
2) Who decides who gets to punch who
2) It's me, I decide who gets to punch who. We're talking about what I think is morally okay, I'm not sure why it comes off as a surprise that I'm the one who decides i
|
On July 03 2019 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 03:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:11 Nebuchad wrote:
There is something telling about the fact that every time something like this comes up it's impossible for some people to single out the fascists. Like, I can't be morally fine with attacking Andy Ngo, fascist sympathizer, I have to be fine with attacking journalists. It's the same process that happens every time the word "fascist" is replaced by "people who disagree with you on politics".
I am not fine with assaulting "journalists". Farva isn't fine with assaulting "journalists". If you don't know that, you ought to. Be better. The problem here is that you think beating up fascists is totally okay. Even if those "fascists" are not actually doing anything violent. Even though I agree with you that Andy Ngo is a deplorable troll, smashing him in the face and stealing his gopro is not an adequate response, nor is it morally justified. There's a reason we have a justice system. If you think "adhering to a fascist ideology" is so bad you should be punched over it, you should pass censorship laws on fascist propaganda, ban fascist organizations, and generally make fascism illegal. But going out and punching them in the face is wrong on many levels. 1) Violence doesn't solve anything, it just polarizes the issue further, which leads to more violence, more polarization, etc. 2) Who decides who gets to punch who? I'm sure there's people who feel communists are despiccable and should be punched in the face. Do you, neb, deserve to be punched in the face for your political beliefs? Communism may have a noble goal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is no doubt that all communist regimes so far have all been fucking awful... most of them considerably worse than Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. So defending our civilization from communists is a noble goal, and communists should be punched in the face. Right? And what about atheists? Clearly their loose morals is leading us down the road to destruction and needs to be stopped. Violently if necessary. Or for that matter, evangelicals. Their puritannical intolerance must be stopped. Etc. etc. 3) Note how I just decided you were a communist? In a system where we could punch communists in the face, you'd be screwed. Even though you have self-declared various times as definitely not a communist. Mob rule doesn't care. Antifa decided Andy Ngo is a fascist and should be punched. In this case they might be right. But mob rule is often wrong and innocents get lynched. Are these non-fascist innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time acceptable collateral for the "good" of punching fascists? Btw, regarding anti-fascism laws, many of them are in place in various European countries. I don't know whether we have less problems with fascism than the US, but we definitely have less *overt* fascism. We also have a lot less problems with violence against journalists. Yes, I do agree with your characterization of what the problem is: we do have a difference in our moral code. The justice system deals with legal questions not with moral questions. I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists, in case I need to make that clear. And yes of course my preferred route is having laws that ban fascism as hate speech, that makes a lot more sense than relying on the kindness of masked strangers. But that's not going to happen in the US any time soon. 1) That's true, yeah. If you have some way of solving fascism I'm listening. Last time around we went with the antifascist route. 2) It's me, I decide who gets to punch who. We're talking about what I think is morally okay, I'm not sure why it comes off as a surprise that I'm the one who decides it. 3) Are you trying to have me empathize with fascists? Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism, for the record, and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists. 1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried. Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started. The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists. So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route. 2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail. 3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander. 1) Okay sure that distinction makes sense, I can grant you that if you want. The end result is still that we dealt with the fascists with violence. 2) There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over fascists is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. 3) Sure, if I am morally fine with assaulting fascists, and I assault someone who I think is a fascist, but it turns out they aren't, I am no longer morally justified. That's not a groundbreaking statement tho.
I guess that would make people assaulting you justified because they could feel threatened by your support of political violence and potentially becoming innocent victims of it. ;-)
|
I like how consistently and obviously everyone ignores all of the non violent day to day activities of antifa in favour of talking about a few people who obviously want a fight more than anything else.
|
On July 03 2019 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 03:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:11 Nebuchad wrote:
There is something telling about the fact that every time something like this comes up it's impossible for some people to single out the fascists. Like, I can't be morally fine with attacking Andy Ngo, fascist sympathizer, I have to be fine with attacking journalists. It's the same process that happens every time the word "fascist" is replaced by "people who disagree with you on politics".
I am not fine with assaulting "journalists". Farva isn't fine with assaulting "journalists". If you don't know that, you ought to. Be better. The problem here is that you think beating up fascists is totally okay. Even if those "fascists" are not actually doing anything violent. Even though I agree with you that Andy Ngo is a deplorable troll, smashing him in the face and stealing his gopro is not an adequate response, nor is it morally justified. There's a reason we have a justice system. If you think "adhering to a fascist ideology" is so bad you should be punched over it, you should pass censorship laws on fascist propaganda, ban fascist organizations, and generally make fascism illegal. But going out and punching them in the face is wrong on many levels. 1) Violence doesn't solve anything, it just polarizes the issue further, which leads to more violence, more polarization, etc. 2) Who decides who gets to punch who? I'm sure there's people who feel communists are despiccable and should be punched in the face. Do you, neb, deserve to be punched in the face for your political beliefs? Communism may have a noble goal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is no doubt that all communist regimes so far have all been fucking awful... most of them considerably worse than Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. So defending our civilization from communists is a noble goal, and communists should be punched in the face. Right? And what about atheists? Clearly their loose morals is leading us down the road to destruction and needs to be stopped. Violently if necessary. Or for that matter, evangelicals. Their puritannical intolerance must be stopped. Etc. etc. 3) Note how I just decided you were a communist? In a system where we could punch communists in the face, you'd be screwed. Even though you have self-declared various times as definitely not a communist. Mob rule doesn't care. Antifa decided Andy Ngo is a fascist and should be punched. In this case they might be right. But mob rule is often wrong and innocents get lynched. Are these non-fascist innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time acceptable collateral for the "good" of punching fascists? Btw, regarding anti-fascism laws, many of them are in place in various European countries. I don't know whether we have less problems with fascism than the US, but we definitely have less *overt* fascism. We also have a lot less problems with violence against journalists. Yes, I do agree with your characterization of what the problem is: we do have a difference in our moral code. The justice system deals with legal questions not with moral questions. I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists, in case I need to make that clear. And yes of course my preferred route is having laws that ban fascism as hate speech, that makes a lot more sense than relying on the kindness of masked strangers. But that's not going to happen in the US any time soon. 1) That's true, yeah. If you have some way of solving fascism I'm listening. Last time around we went with the antifascist route. 2) It's me, I decide who gets to punch who. We're talking about what I think is morally okay, I'm not sure why it comes off as a surprise that I'm the one who decides it. 3) Are you trying to have me empathize with fascists? Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism, for the record, and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists. 1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried. Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started. The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists. So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route. 2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail. 3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander. 1) Okay sure that distinction makes sense, I can grant you that if you want. The end result is still that we dealt with the fascists with violence. 2) There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over fascists is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. 3) Sure, if I am morally fine with assaulting fascists, and I assault someone who I think is a fascist, but it turns out they aren't, I am no longer morally justified. That's not a groundbreaking statement tho. I guess that would make people assaulting you justified because they could feel threatened by your support of political violence and potentially becoming innocent victims of it. ;-)
The only people who should feel threatened by my support of political violence are fascists, and fascists weren't waiting for this to justify assaulting me and people like me. A key component of fascism is the view that social progress is decadent and causes society to become degenerate. My views are literally making society fall apart, they are already coming after me.
|
On July 03 2019 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 03:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:11 Nebuchad wrote:
There is something telling about the fact that every time something like this comes up it's impossible for some people to single out the fascists. Like, I can't be morally fine with attacking Andy Ngo, fascist sympathizer, I have to be fine with attacking journalists. It's the same process that happens every time the word "fascist" is replaced by "people who disagree with you on politics".
I am not fine with assaulting "journalists". Farva isn't fine with assaulting "journalists". If you don't know that, you ought to. Be better. The problem here is that you think beating up fascists is totally okay. Even if those "fascists" are not actually doing anything violent. Even though I agree with you that Andy Ngo is a deplorable troll, smashing him in the face and stealing his gopro is not an adequate response, nor is it morally justified. There's a reason we have a justice system. If you think "adhering to a fascist ideology" is so bad you should be punched over it, you should pass censorship laws on fascist propaganda, ban fascist organizations, and generally make fascism illegal. But going out and punching them in the face is wrong on many levels. 1) Violence doesn't solve anything, it just polarizes the issue further, which leads to more violence, more polarization, etc. 2) Who decides who gets to punch who? I'm sure there's people who feel communists are despiccable and should be punched in the face. Do you, neb, deserve to be punched in the face for your political beliefs? Communism may have a noble goal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is no doubt that all communist regimes so far have all been fucking awful... most of them considerably worse than Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. So defending our civilization from communists is a noble goal, and communists should be punched in the face. Right? And what about atheists? Clearly their loose morals is leading us down the road to destruction and needs to be stopped. Violently if necessary. Or for that matter, evangelicals. Their puritannical intolerance must be stopped. Etc. etc. 3) Note how I just decided you were a communist? In a system where we could punch communists in the face, you'd be screwed. Even though you have self-declared various times as definitely not a communist. Mob rule doesn't care. Antifa decided Andy Ngo is a fascist and should be punched. In this case they might be right. But mob rule is often wrong and innocents get lynched. Are these non-fascist innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time acceptable collateral for the "good" of punching fascists? Btw, regarding anti-fascism laws, many of them are in place in various European countries. I don't know whether we have less problems with fascism than the US, but we definitely have less *overt* fascism. We also have a lot less problems with violence against journalists. Yes, I do agree with your characterization of what the problem is: we do have a difference in our moral code. The justice system deals with legal questions not with moral questions. I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists, in case I need to make that clear. And yes of course my preferred route is having laws that ban fascism as hate speech, that makes a lot more sense than relying on the kindness of masked strangers. But that's not going to happen in the US any time soon. 1) That's true, yeah. If you have some way of solving fascism I'm listening. Last time around we went with the antifascist route. 2) It's me, I decide who gets to punch who. We're talking about what I think is morally okay, I'm not sure why it comes off as a surprise that I'm the one who decides it. 3) Are you trying to have me empathize with fascists? Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism, for the record, and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists. 1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried. Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started. The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists. So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route. 2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail. 3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander. 1) Okay sure that distinction makes sense, I can grant you that if you want. The end result is still that we dealt with the fascists with violence. 2) There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over fascists is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. 3) Sure, if I am morally fine with assaulting fascists, and I assault someone who I think is a fascist, but it turns out they aren't, I am no longer morally justified. That's not a groundbreaking statement tho. I guess that would make people assaulting you justified because they could feel threatened by your support of political violence and potentially becoming innocent victims of it. ;-) The only people who should feel threatened by my support of political violence are fascists, and fascists weren't waiting for this to justify assaulting me and people like me. A key component of fascism is the view that social progress is decadent and causes society to become degenerate. My views are literally making society fall apart, they are already coming after me.
In your previous post you admitted that you may misidentify someone as a fascist. You are intellectually dishonest. I've been called a fascists on a few occasions by communist nutjobs (as well as being called a communist/socialist by libertarian nuts). Why would I not feel threatened by people like you?
|
|
|
On July 03 2019 04:55 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2019 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 04:45 maybenexttime wrote:On July 03 2019 04:08 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 03:53 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:53 Nebuchad wrote:On July 03 2019 00:34 Acrofales wrote:On July 03 2019 00:11 Nebuchad wrote:
There is something telling about the fact that every time something like this comes up it's impossible for some people to single out the fascists. Like, I can't be morally fine with attacking Andy Ngo, fascist sympathizer, I have to be fine with attacking journalists. It's the same process that happens every time the word "fascist" is replaced by "people who disagree with you on politics".
I am not fine with assaulting "journalists". Farva isn't fine with assaulting "journalists". If you don't know that, you ought to. Be better. The problem here is that you think beating up fascists is totally okay. Even if those "fascists" are not actually doing anything violent. Even though I agree with you that Andy Ngo is a deplorable troll, smashing him in the face and stealing his gopro is not an adequate response, nor is it morally justified. There's a reason we have a justice system. If you think "adhering to a fascist ideology" is so bad you should be punched over it, you should pass censorship laws on fascist propaganda, ban fascist organizations, and generally make fascism illegal. But going out and punching them in the face is wrong on many levels. 1) Violence doesn't solve anything, it just polarizes the issue further, which leads to more violence, more polarization, etc. 2) Who decides who gets to punch who? I'm sure there's people who feel communists are despiccable and should be punched in the face. Do you, neb, deserve to be punched in the face for your political beliefs? Communism may have a noble goal, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and there is no doubt that all communist regimes so far have all been fucking awful... most of them considerably worse than Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. So defending our civilization from communists is a noble goal, and communists should be punched in the face. Right? And what about atheists? Clearly their loose morals is leading us down the road to destruction and needs to be stopped. Violently if necessary. Or for that matter, evangelicals. Their puritannical intolerance must be stopped. Etc. etc. 3) Note how I just decided you were a communist? In a system where we could punch communists in the face, you'd be screwed. Even though you have self-declared various times as definitely not a communist. Mob rule doesn't care. Antifa decided Andy Ngo is a fascist and should be punched. In this case they might be right. But mob rule is often wrong and innocents get lynched. Are these non-fascist innocents who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time acceptable collateral for the "good" of punching fascists? Btw, regarding anti-fascism laws, many of them are in place in various European countries. I don't know whether we have less problems with fascism than the US, but we definitely have less *overt* fascism. We also have a lot less problems with violence against journalists. Yes, I do agree with your characterization of what the problem is: we do have a difference in our moral code. The justice system deals with legal questions not with moral questions. I don't think it should be legal to punch fascists, in case I need to make that clear. And yes of course my preferred route is having laws that ban fascism as hate speech, that makes a lot more sense than relying on the kindness of masked strangers. But that's not going to happen in the US any time soon. 1) That's true, yeah. If you have some way of solving fascism I'm listening. Last time around we went with the antifascist route. 2) It's me, I decide who gets to punch who. We're talking about what I think is morally okay, I'm not sure why it comes off as a surprise that I'm the one who decides it. 3) Are you trying to have me empathize with fascists? Yes, in a system where we could punch socialists in the face I'd be screwed, no shit. I am not for such a system. That system is called fascism, for the record, and it's a large part of why I'm morally fine with punching fascists. 1) I wouldn't call WW2 the anti-fascist route. Rather it was just geopolitics as usual. The UK didn't really care what political ideology Hitler adhered to. And cared even less about Italy. I imagine they'd have been even more worried if they were communists. The main issue was that they didn't want a new German empire gobbling up all of Europe. France was, understandably, even more worried. Sure, it definitely suited the allies that the Nazis were doing gruesomely horrible things in the countries they controlled, but that wasn't why the war started. The US was even less worried about fascism, and initially there was quite a lot of support for the German cause. Especially in the face of the political elite who were scared shitless of communism. Whitewashing the Allies' motives as nobly anti-fascist after the fact definitely makes them look good (and don't get me wrong, they were definitely "on the right side" of that fight), but the reasons for going to war initially had very very little to do with stopping those evil fascists. So unless the fascists take full control of the country and stat invading Canada and Mexico, I don't think we'll go the anti-fascist route. 2) I'm a bit surprised you don't get the problem here. What makes your morality the "right" one? You'll have to do a bit better than that. If you and Andy Ngo both want to beat one another up, what gives you the moral high ground over him? As a third party, why should I intervene on your behalf and stop Andy from punching you, but not stop you from punching Andy? To me you both look like belligerent fools who need to sleep it off in jail. 3) No. I'm trying to point out that you are making innocent victims by wanting to beat up fascists. Just like those people on 4chan who dox people. Sometimes they dox the scum of the earth and I kinda sympathize and think they deserve it. And sometimes they dox people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their lives get ruined all the same, and they were totally innocent. Same thing. Just because you think someone is a fascist in the spur of the moment, doesn't mean they are. And you might just be beating up an innocent bystander. 1) Okay sure that distinction makes sense, I can grant you that if you want. The end result is still that we dealt with the fascists with violence. 2) There is no such thing as a "right morality", if there was the world would be a lot simpler. I cannot demonstrate that my morality is the right one, nor am I attempting to. You shouldn't either. All we can see is whether my morality is consistent, and I think it is. What gives me the moral high ground over fascists is the goal and the consequences of the violence I am supporting vs the goal and the consequences of the violence they are supporting. 3) Sure, if I am morally fine with assaulting fascists, and I assault someone who I think is a fascist, but it turns out they aren't, I am no longer morally justified. That's not a groundbreaking statement tho. I guess that would make people assaulting you justified because they could feel threatened by your support of political violence and potentially becoming innocent victims of it. ;-) The only people who should feel threatened by my support of political violence are fascists, and fascists weren't waiting for this to justify assaulting me and people like me. A key component of fascism is the view that social progress is decadent and causes society to become degenerate. My views are literally making society fall apart, they are already coming after me. In your previous post you admitted that you may misidentify someone as a fascist. You are intellectually dishonest. I've been called a fascists on a few occasions by communist nutjobs (as well as being called a communist/socialist by libertarian nuts). Why would I not feel threatened by people like you?
How am I intellectually dishonest? Of course it's possible that someone will be misidentified as a fascist, and in that case, an attack on them is, in my view, morally wrong. What else should I be saying in order to be honest according to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
